|
|
|
|||||||
| World Markets | ShareLynx | Futures | Money Masters | INO Markets | INO Metals | Asian Mrkets | Pre-market | Google GIM |
| General Discussion Any subject may be discussed here that does not fit into the other forums. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Vermont Passes Resolution
To Secede From The US By Greg Szymanski 11-3-5 The members of a peaceful freedom-fighting group want no part of neo-cons running the imperialistic U.S. government. Plan to secede from the U.S. gaining momentum in the fiercely independent Green Mountain state. The neo-con band of criminals running Washington, trampling on civil rights at home and invading countries at will overseas, has led a large group of strong-minded Vermont freedom-fighters with no choice but to secede from the United States. And last Friday at the state capital building in Montpelier, a historic independence convention was held, the first of its kind in the United States since May 20, 1861, when North Carolina decided to leave the Union. A packed House Chamber in the Vermont statehouse, with more than 400 gathered, started the daylong secession convention with a speech by keynote James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, and ended with a resolution passed to secede from the United States. Most people think of secession as impossible if not treasonous, but the concept is deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence, reminding us that "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and to institute new government." And with the neo-con takeover of Washington, including all its branches of government that transforming America into a one-party dictatorship, that's exactly what the resolution passed in Vermont seeks to do by members of grassroots movement growing in numbers daily. Although the resolution is the first step in the long process that needs support from the state legislators - as well as an officially recognized convention - the grass roots group called the Second Vermont Republic passed the following citizen's resolution: "Be it resolved that the state of Vermont peacefully and democratically free itself from the United States of America and return to its natural status as an independent republic as it was between January 15, 1777 and March 4, 1791." Even though critics give the secession group a snowball's chance in hell,, organizers are firmly convinced in the present-day tyrannical political climate secession will not only succeed but will prosper. This could only happen in Vermont where people are still fiercely independent and fed up with the course the American government is taking," said Thomas Naylor, the head of the group calling itself the Second Republic of Vermont. "We have a lot going for us and if you think about it, we have a lot in common with Poland's Solidarity movement, who many said would never succeed. "But Poland did get its freedom, mainly because it was a country liked around the world, sort of like how people in America feel about Vermont. When people think of Vermont, they have a warm and fuzzy feeling, an image of black and white Holstein cows and beautiful scenery. I can also tell you there is now closet support in the legislature now and we are serious about getting the support needed to secede from the United States., Naylor, a former Duke University economics professor, said from his Vermont home this week that statewide independence is really a euphemism for secession, adding Vermont also will seek to join the group of Unrepresented Nations similar to the Lakota Indians and other international indigenous people. "Secession is one of the most politically charged words in America, thanks to Abraham Lincoln," said Naylor, adding he had been writing about secession for the better part of 10 years but the movement picked up tremendous steam after 9/11. "Secession really combines a radical act of rebellion grounded in fear and anger with a positive vision for the future. "It represents an act of faith that the new will be better than the old. The decision to secede necessarily involves a very personal, painful four-step decision process. It first involves denunciation that the United States has lost its moral authority and is unsustainable, ungovernable and unfixable. Second, there is disengagement or admitting I don,t want to go down with the Titanic. Third, there is demystification that secession really is a viable option constitutionally, politically and economically. And finally, defiance, saying I personally want to help take Vermont back from big business, big markets and big government and I want to do so peacefully.," What started out as Naylor's little fantasy to have an independent country made up of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, has already grown from a small group of 36 several years ago to a packed House Chamber in the state's capital. Claiming to have a membership of 160 as of last April, Naylor said the numbers have doubled or even tripled. "I,m getting calls from all over the country supporting our movement," said Naylor. "Although there are more than 20 states with some kind of secession movement, Alaska and Hawaii being the best examples, I think Vermont really has the best chance at succeeding at seceding." Besides holding the Vermont independence convention in Montpelier, the smallest state capital city in the United States, it also has the reputation as being the most fiercely independent and anti- big business, being the only one not allowing a McDonald's in the entire country. "First and foremost, we want out of the United States. It's not just an anti-Bush statement and if Kerry was elected, we still would have wanted out," said Naylor. "The reality is that we have a one party system in this country, called the Republican party, that is owned and operated and controlled by corporate America. So it's not just a Bush protest, but a protest against the Empire. Although many critics have said the mighty U.S. would not stand for Vermont's secession, Naylor as will as others disagree, including Jim Hogue, a talk show host on Vermont Public radio. "There's nothing they would want here. There's no oil, just mountains. We,re just not important enough. We,re funny, we,re small and we,re peaceful," said Hogue several months ago in an article in the Montreal Gazette. With most Vermont politicians, including the Congressional delegation, ignoring the grassroots secession movement or just laughing it off as good theatre, Vermont's Lt. Gov., Brian Dubie, has weighed in on the issue, giving it a certain amount of merit but stopping short of outright support. "I really salute their energy and passion," he said in a local press interview. "we have an obligation to think of what is in our best interest as a state and for the people of out state, even as we approach federal and national issues." Besides Naylor and Kuntsler, others who spoke at the Oct. 28 independence convention included Professor Frank Bryan of the University of Vermont; Kirkpatrick Sale, author of Human Scale; J. Kevin Graffagnino, executive director of theVermont Historical Society; Professor Eric Davis, Middlebury College; Shay Totten, editor of the Vermont Guardian; and Dr. Rob Williams of Champlain College. http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles...8131/36584.htm
__________________
GOLD=FREEDOM! 
|
|
#2
11-03-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
It will not work.
|
|
#3
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
mabey mabey not but let Vermont give it their best shot.someones got to!!!! something may go their way others may follow or help in various ways.
__________________
If you can't Dazzle em with Brilliance Baffle them with Bull Shit. 
|
|
#4
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Is this for real?
Yes, Yes, Yes Curtman you are a defeatist, and get some smilies.  Down with the U.S.A. long live the 50 free states.
__________________
English Commander: Beg your pardon sire, but won't we hit our own troops ? Longshanks: Yes... but we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves... attack .
|
|
#5
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
They ought to team up with NH and ME, for a secession of the whole Northeast tip of the country.
NH: "Live Free Or Die" (says that on their licence plates. wonder what the inmates who made the plates think of it?)
|
|
#6
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
will not work???
LET THEM TRY DOING SO... thats the most important at this stage. Should they fail, they will still have the merits. 
__________________
When our knowing exceeds our sensing, we will no longer be deceived by the illusions of our senses -- Walter Russell... People and humanity are Human beings have been enslaved by divisiveness--the product of binary thinking for too long - Buddhabot 
|
|
#7
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Quote:
__________________
If you can't Dazzle em with Brilliance Baffle them with Bull Shit.
|
|
#8
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
BY GOD, GOOD FOR THEM !!!!
If they come anywhere close to being serious about this, I may pick up and move there. I want to be around folks that aren't scared to tell the Federal Govt to go to hell. I even agree not to hold it against them for sent their boys to die to keep US from having the same right ( AND BOYS.....IT IS A RIGHT ) back in 1861, and agree not to fight them over their attempt this time. Anybody wanna start a pool as to whether this will ever make the national news media ??
__________________
Just waiting on gold and the DOW to pass each other.
|
|
#9
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Being from the Granite State, There is more to the Live free or Die motto than one would first think.
General John Stark was not able to attend a reunion of the participants of the battle of bennington. He sent a letter where the quote was contained. The entire quote is " Live free or die for there are things far worse than death". In these trying times that quote rings truer now than ever before. I think I need to join this movement. V10Silver....
__________________
The only difference between dreams and reality is inaction..... To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson
|
|
#10
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Quote:
They don't want to add insult to injury.
__________________
English Commander: Beg your pardon sire, but won't we hit our own troops ? Longshanks: Yes... but we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves... attack .
|
|
#11
11-03-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
What is it about tearing down Bush? It will not work because it should not, at least on the state level. The country lost that battle once before. The United States is supposed to be just what it implies, United! And to have any revolt without including representation from each state is not only selfish but treasonous. In short if you are going to have a civil war, you can't keep me out of it just because I live in another state. Each state in the Union belongs to each man woman and child of the union, a fact that nobody cannot dispute. America belongs to Americans period. Any theft of one state is going to be seen as just that, theft. I think it will do great harm to the cause for one state to take such a stand against the masses and discredit future resistance movements by the failure they are about to achieve.
Further it should be noted that I am not against political reform as we all are aware, I just like to see things done in a manner that will succeed. The actions of Vermont are going to create bigger problems for them than they will be able to endure. As a result we could all see the blue Helmets on our soil sooner rather than later only they will be sporting our weapons against us. If I am not mistaken Vermont is a Commonwealth and a token gem of the british, don't be surprised to find them instigating the singular motions of these movements along with the welcoming of them back into the european commonwealth. If the latter sounds good to you it speaks volumes for your blatant disregard and contempt for the constitution you so vigorously trump. The Declaration and Constitution states "We the People", not We the Vermont rebels. Take your government back yes, I am with you but, do not destroy a great nation doing so. To do this is playing right into the brits hands by the old divide and conquer theory of appropriating of new territory. I call it theft, just as you would see immanent domain a theft of your land, I will not give up Vermont from my possession. Let the games begin.
|
|
#12
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Quote:
Secession by Walter Block The law of free association is a crucially important implication of the rights of private property (in physical material, and in our own bodies). For if we cannot freely associate with others on a mutually voluntary basis, our property rights are to that extent abrogated. The most serious denigration of property rights in persons and thus in free association is, of course, murder. No one favors such behavior (killing in self-defense is entirely another matter) so this is not at all controversial. Another grave violation of the libertarian code of non-aggression against non-aggressors and their property is slavery (or kidnapping, which is short-term slavery). This, too, is non-debatable. There are, however, many institutions, actually favored by "respectable" commentators on political economy, which partake of slavery to a greater or lesser extent. All laws against "discrimination" are violations of free association, because they force two parties, one of which who wishes to have nothing to do with the other, to interact despite these desires. When a store owner is forced to sell to customers against his will, and is not free to snub any of them on whatever racial, sexual, religious etc., basis he chooses, he is to that extent a slave. The difference between such laws and outright slavery is only one of degree: in each case, the essence of the matter is that people are forced to associate with others against their will. Another instance is forced unionism. Our labor legislation forces employers to "bargain fairly" with those they would prefer to avoid entirely. Perhaps the most important violation of the law of free association, at least on pragmatic grounds, occurs in the political realm. This is crucial, because other infringements, such as affirmative action, union legislation, etc., stem from political sources. If freedom of association in the realm of affirmative action is the right to discriminate, and in the field of labor the right to hire a "scab," then when it comes to the political realm, it is the right to secession. Those who are not free to secede are in effect (partial) slaves to a king, or to a tyrannous majority under democracy. Nor is secession to be confused with the mere right to emigrate, even when one is allowed to take one’s property out of the country. Secession means the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account. Why should the man who wishes to secede from a government have to vacate his land? For surely, even under the philosophy of statists, it was the people who came first. Government, in the minarchist libertarian view, was only instituted by them in order to achieve certain ends, later, after they had come to own their property. That is to say, the state is a creation of the people, not the people a creation of the state. But if a government was once invited in, to provide certain services, then it can also be uninvited, or invited to leave, or expelled. To deny this is to assert that the government was there first, before there were even any people. But how can this be? Government is not a disembodied entity, composed of creatures other than human (although, perhaps, there may be legitimate doubts about this on the part of some); rather, it is comprised of flesh and blood, albeit for the most part evil, people. Given, then, that secession is a human right, part and parcel of the right to free association, how can we characterize those who oppose this? Who would use force and violence, of all things, in order to compel unwilling participants to join in, or to remain part of, a political entity they wish to have nothing to do with? Why, as would be slave holders, of a sort. Certainly not as libertarians. Thus, it is nothing short of amazing to find that there are commentators who actually call themselves libertarians and yet oppose the rights of secession. Were these people to remain consistent with this view, they would be logically forced, also, to give their imprimatur to union and anti-discrimination legislation, surely a reductio ad absurdum. One of the grounds upon which so called libertarians oppose secession, the right to be left alone politically speaking, is that those who wish to secede might be less than fully perfect in various ways. For example, the Confederate states practiced slavery, and this is certainly incompatible with libertarian law. Let us assume away the awkward historical fact that this "curious institution" was operational in the north, too. After all, we are making a philosophical point, not a historical one. Let us posit, arguendo, that the north came to its confrontation with the south with totally clean hands as far as slave holding, or, indeed, any other deviation from libertarian law is concerned (e.g., tariffs, high taxes, etc.). That is, the north is a totally libertarian entity, the south a morally evil one. (I know, I know; I’m only talking here for argument’s sake). Would that premise be a valid rationale for the north to in effect enslave the south, and thus violate its rights of free association? It would not. If it was proper for the north to hold the south captive against its will, the implication is that India was not warranted in seceding from England in 1948 since the latter practiced suttee; that African countries were not justified in departing from their European colonial masters since they practiced clitorectemy; that it would not have been permissible for the Jews in 1930s Germany to have left the jurisdiction of the Nazis since they, too, were doubtless imperfect in some way or other. Let us move from the realm of the macro to that of the micro. If groups of imperfect people are not justified in seceding from groups of perfect people, what about individuals? If we rigorously apply the principle on the basis of which confederate secession was opposed to the individual level, again we run into all sorts of counterintuitive results. For example, divorce. Under this "logic" no spouse could leave another if the departing one were less than perfect. In the words of Clyde Wilson: "If the right of secession of one part of a political community is subject to the moral approval of another, then there really is no right of secession." Either you have the right of free association and secession, or you do not. If secession is always and everywhere justified, what, then, is the proper libertarian response to the existence of suttee, slavery, clitorectomy, etc., in other countries (e.g., in seceding territories)? Under libertarian free market anarchism, it would be permissible for a private defense agency to invade private property if a crime is occurring there (if a mistake is made in this regard, libertarian punishment theory, the topic for another day, kicks into gear; in this type of society, even the police are not above the law). If A is about to murder B in A’s house, A may not properly object when the police kick in his door to forestall this dastardly act. Thus, free market competing defense agencies could have gone into the south to free the slaves, but once this was done, given that there were no other crimes occurring, and that due punishment was meted out to the evil-doers, that would be the end of the matter. There would be no further interaction. The south (or India in the case of suttee) would then be allowed to go its own way. Under limited government libertarianism, the government of the north would take no steps to rid the sovereign Confederacy of its slavery (or India of its suttee). The purpose of the state in this philosophy is to protect its own citizens. Period. And, on the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned. However, even under these assumptions individual abolitionists would be perfectly free, and, indeed, justified, in going in to the Confederacy, guns in hand, with the intention of ridding the south of this evil institution of slavery. But if things went poorly for them, they could not then scurry back to the north, tails between their legs, hiding behind their mama’s skirts, because that would necessarily bring in the northern government into the fray. It would violate the non-invasion (except in self-defense) provision of limited government libertarianism, or minarchism. There would be no "reconstruction." There would be no "indivisible" U.S.A. Rather, there would now be two totally separate countries. The U.S.A. and the Confederacy. Again, once slavery was ended, given that there were no other crimes occurring, and that due punishment was meted out to the evil-doers, that would be the end of the matter. On the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned. July 9, 2002 Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professors of economics at Loyola University New Orleans. http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block18.html
__________________
GOLD=FREEDOM!
|
|
#13
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Letter to Professor Block:
Quoting the essay Secession: "For example, the Confederate states practiced slavery, and this is certainly incompatible with libertarian law." Dear Professor Block A most wonderful essay on Secession, the only fault I am able to point out is your use of the word "LIBERTARIAN LAW." Arguendo for the moment, from a Diest perspective, "The Law" and the meaning of the law applies to the supreme laws of the universe, a.k.a. physics, physical and metaphysical laws of existence, human, animal, and matter (Law of Truth, Greshams Law, Law of Gravity, Boyles Law, etc.). These may be explained as the "General Laws of the Universe," uncorruptable laws of antiquity and time immemorial that can NOT be violated by man or beast alike ..... When using the language "Libertarian Law" (ibid) these are mere human created RULES ..... they are not LAWS! For instance, the Christian decalog is merely a "set of rules," not the LAW! "Thou shalt not kill." If a man decides to break this rule and attempts to kill me, and I terminate him defending myself during his initiated unprovoked attack ... I have violated this rule that condems killing, however, if I abided by this rule and just stood there and allowed him to kill me, that would be deemed "suicide" and I would have broken another rule .....! "Honour thy Mother and Father." What if my Mother is a cocain addicted prostitute and my Father is spending three life terms in prison as a serial rapist and murderer. Am I to honor them? I sayeth noth .... this would be unreasonable and illogical. I am supposedly free, yet I must possess a driver license to freely travel. I supposedly own real property, yet if I do not pay TAXES on that property, the property will be confiscated in a forfeiture scheme .... I am not free, and I do not own allodial property pursuant the RULES of the GAME ..... Hence, these are no laws, they are constructed and PROMULGATED synthetic rules of a SYSTEM deceptively propagandized as "LAW," designed to control individuals, groups, tribes, etc. created by a delusional pollyanna society and civilization played in a game called countries!. There is also the greatest LAW of the universe, The Supreme Law of TRUTH. Truth is infinite and indestructable ..... Truth requires zero inputs to sustain itself, whereas, lies, fraud and deception require infinite energy inputs to sustain their existence. Once the energy inputs of the lies, fraud or deception cannot be maintained, or they are discovered by intention or accident, the lie collapses and truth is revealed! All lies require truth to sustain their existence .... truth requires ABSOLUTELY nothing to sustain it's existence. Recklessly employing the verbiage, "Libertarian Law" is part and parcel to the metaphysical "Law of Good Intentions." Polyanna Dogooders and special interests operating as visionaries or "know it alls" and their pious moralizations and idealized concepts of Shangra La over time become systems, history proves that once systems are established, all systems are ponzi pyramids requiring higher and higher energy inputs to sustain their existence or they will collapse. Whether the system is named and operated as capitalism, communism, socialism or libertarianism, history is replete with millions, maybe billions of the corpses of humanity and property destruction when moralized systematic ideology and their systems fail .... Whenever ANY human created system fails, whether it be capitalism, communism, socialism or even libertarianism, the Gendarmes services are called upon and the system is supported with guns, fear, physical and mental force justified by the fraudulent "Tyranny of Good Intentions!" Truth of the matter is all systems create a special class of men within the system, a class of men that have become reliant upon living off of the staus quo system, robbing and redirecting the energy created by the system in their self annointed interest. Hence proving that human systems, including Libertarianism, even a system of Anarchy are fraudulent lies with no basis in nature or the natural LAW. WHEREFORE, to this Diest, it is axiomatic and self-evident that that the laws of the universe reign supreme and cannot be violated by men, and that all other forms of "law(s)," religious, legislative, social, and economic, etc. are fraudulent and deceptive synthetic rulemaking falsly promulgated as natural law to control the destiny of man- kind through systems controlled by the few, regardless of the names or the faces that seek control. THUSLY, libertarian idealism and the use of the words "Libertarian Law" provably and in essence means, overtime if or when libertarianism is adopted as a political or economic ideology, it shall also wear the face of a false religion to the few that depend upon this system for their survival, much like capitalism, socialism, communism, etc., therefore, historical tauntology proves that all systems inevitably result in "meet the new boss, same as the old boss!" "Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations! And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty." --Frederick Bastiat (1850) http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Gee/gee6.html
__________________
GOLD=FREEDOM!
|
|
#14
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Quote:
Do we own each other? We used to be THESE United States once upon a time -- before we became THE United States.. I like THESE United States better. Lincoln was an a-hole, sorry to report that. As we applaud the new-found "freedoms" found in the former Soviet republics, should we not applaud the new-found "freedoms" found in seceding states? I ask you.
__________________
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
|
|
#15
11-03-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Curtman said:
"Each state in the Union belongs to each man woman and child of the union, a fact that nobody cannot dispute." Consider it disputed. Could you tell me where you get that from? Are you saying the "State" or Union is greater than the individual? Therefor a group of individuals can never leave the "State"?.....or in this case, a gourp of individuals from Vermont cannot leave the Union......because they come from Vermont.....which belongs to the Union? By what power does the Union declare any State its own?..... and where does it say that Vermont or any other State agrees to this ownership? ..
__________________
Quote:
Recommended: http://cuttingthroughthematrix.com/
|
|
#16
11-03-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
I an like any american born person, a product of this land. As A result I am an shareholder of this country. I have a vested interest in it and have subsidized it with revenues that the states benefit from. Are people in Vermont going to repay all the federal dollars contributed to it over the years to buy their independence or do they intend to steal it?
The bottom line is this, reform needs to come from the country as a whole not from one selfish group of mis-contents who cannot organize an effective plan to take back our government. I am all for getting back to the constitutional government that founded this country but not at the cost of total destruction which is were this will lead. The founders were clear on this issue, when you are not happy with your government it is a right to take it back. They did not mean to cut off the nose to spite the face. This plan Vermont has proposed is an rx/ straight from the medicine cabinet of Dr, Kevorkian.
|
|
#17
11-03-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
It will not work, they will fail and in doing so lose more than was stood to be gained.
|
|
#18
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Quote:
__________________
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
|
|
#19
11-03-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Quote:
You and I are just going to disagree on this matter. The discussion will get heated because many of us feel deep seeded levels of passion in the matter. I will not be changing my mind and do not wish to fester adversarial positions into bitter hatred as it looks like FF is wishing it would go. There is little point, it will not fly as it should not. Anytime somebody promotes the destruction of our country I have a problem with that. Sorry you do not feel the same but you are intitled to your opinion.
|
|
#20
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Citizenship and The United States Constitution
by Brent Johnson The Constitution for the United States was written by political historians, people who knew from experience that left unchecked, government will find ways to oppress and control the people. The Constitution is a document of negative authority. This means that if a power or authority is not specifically designated as belonging to the government, then it belongs to the people.> Our federal government was established to perform certain very specific functions. These include national defense, internal law enforcement and general welfare, but the first and foremost of our government's duties is the protection of our unalienable rights. Our country was founded as a Union of Sovereign nations. The federal government was never intended to "rule" these nations. Each of the 50 states in the Union is legally regarded as a Sovereign and foreign country with respect to the federal United States. In law, "United States" means the federal government corporation, not the 50 states! Yet we have allowed the United States to abridge our rights under the Constitution. We have forgotten that our Founding Fathers fought and died to establish and preserve a Union of nations based on principles of freedom and self-rule among the people. We have been tricked into surrendering our natural rights in favor of receiving "privileges" from the federal government. What most Americans do not understand is that they have entered into a contract with the federal government; a contract that exchanges their status as Sovereign Citizens for that of feudal subjects of the State. This contract is embodied within the Social Security application. When you (or your parents) signed your Social Security application Form SS-4 you became bound to an adhesion contract, a contract whose terms are set in stone. When you signed a signature card to open your bank account, you renewed the terms of this same contract. Every time you sign a Form W-4 Request for Withholding Allowance or a Form 1040 IRS Tax Return, you renew this contract. You are not required to sign any of these forms! The terms of the contract you have agreed to subject you to the jurisdiction of the federal government, which lies outside the protection afforded by the Constitution. State Citizens are not subject to federal jurisdiction. The United States Supreme Court has consistently held this to be true. You cannot be required to pay federal and State income taxes or Social Security taxes unless you enter into this contract. But you didn't know that, did you? Income and Social Security taxes are both voluntary! However, there is a remedy available to you. Contract law requires that you be properly informed of all of the terms of any contract you enter into, before you sign the contract. Failure to do so allows you to void the contract, dating back to the original date of signing. By revoking your social security adhesion contract, you are actually entitled to a refund of all income and social security taxes you have ever paid! This has been confirmed by several former Internal Revenue Service Commissioners. By signing the federal government's adhesion contract you have voluntarily given up your Constitutionally protected rights. This accounts for the way in which the IRS can violate your property with impunity, because you have given up the rights that protect you from this kind of abuse. Remember, our Founding Fathers revolted against an oppressive 2% tax. What would they think of America today? You may think that if everyone stopped paying income and social security taxes our government would collapse. This is simply not true. In the first place, 100% of your income taxes go to pay a 60 year old United States debt to the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank through the International Monetary Fund, governed by foreign bankers. The money you pay in income taxes leaves your country! If you look at the back of any canceled check made out to the IRS you will see proof that this is true. Not one penny of your income taxes go to pay for national defense, law enforcement, roads, or any legitimate government functions. Not one cent. As to social security, the future debt of this program is currently over 18 trillion dollars, over six times the value of all property owned by all Americans throughout the world! It is mathematically impossible for the social security system to survive and I guarantee you that unless you are almost due to begin receiving benefits, the money you currently pay into the social security program is going down the drain. You would be better off setting up your own private retirement program (outside of the central banking system). If everyone stopped paying income and social security taxes, two things would happen. The federal government would be forced by the people to down-size to the level originally intended, and there would be an infusion of around 1.4 trillion dollars into the American economy, money that is currently leaving our borders to feed private foreign bankers. In order to declare your Sovereignty as an American Citizen you have to stop accepting government "privileges". This may be difficult for some but it is essential if you truly wish to reclaim your freedom under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Ours was never intended to be a government to "take care" of the people; ours is a government to support the people in taking care of themselves. Our Constitution is the greatest document for freedom ever written. Our Union of nations is the greatest political achievement in history. Stand up for your rights or you will lose them. Build the life you want. Create the American Dream. Reclaim your Sovereign rights as an American Citizen. http://www.freedomradio.us/article10.htm
__________________
GOLD=FREEDOM!
|
|
#21
11-03-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Quote:
We had quite a few people here in Texas with those kinds of ambitions. Too late now. The only secession we will have is when it becomes AZTLAN.
__________________
Words can be used to convey information and words can be used to prevent information from being conveyed.
|
|
#22
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Quote:
End result we got back our government. Unless of course they still fail to impeach and then total chaos erupts.
__________________
English Commander: Beg your pardon sire, but won't we hit our own troops ? Longshanks: Yes... but we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves... attack .
|
|
#23
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
FF is completely right on.
That song was "made for you and me"... In other words, that song was crafted as a piece of PROPOGANDA, for you and me. I own one acre (no more) of land in North Carolina. I do not own Vermont. I do not own more than the acreage for which I have paid. Should I wish to leave your union, you wish to rifle me down? I know you do not wish to "go there"... But what if I do? The harsh reality is.... what?  Should you allow me to leave the union? Or prefer to rifle me down? In light of the Vermont proposition I am uncertain that it is mere rhetoric? What say you?
__________________
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
|
|
#24
11-03-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Quote:
With each defeat the likelihood of making a positive move in the right direction is more and more unlikely. This is not the way to do it. Carl has a better plan than this. This BS will only make the country weaker. It will not work. It will result in a lesson to the rest of th country what can happen if you stand alone against the top. They very well could be the next sacrificial lamb within our borders.
|
|
#25
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Actually, Curtman is right.
The original Constitution of the united States is dead. We have been reorganized under a new federal and global government. Stolen again from one of BB's posts... And The War Came April 7 - 12, 1861 When the Southern states walked out of Congress on March 27, 1861, the quorum to conduct business under the Constitution was lost. The only votes that Congress could lawfully take, under Parliamentary Law, were those to set the time to reconvene, take a vote to get a quorum, and vote to adjourn and set a date, time, and place to reconvene at a later time, but instead, Congress abandoned the House and Senate without setting a date to reconvene. Under the parliamentary law of Congress, when this happened, Congress became sine die (pronounced see-na dee-a; literally "without day") and thus when Congress adjourned sine die, it ceased to exist as a lawful deliberative body, and the only lawful, constitutional power that could declare war was no longer lawful, or in session. The Southern states, by virtue of their secession from the Union, also ceased to exist sine die, and some state legislatures in the Northern bloc also adjourned sine die, and thus, all the states which were parties to creating the Constitution ceased to exist. President Lincoln executed the first executive order written by any President on April 15, 1861, Executive Order 1, and the nation has been ruled by the President under executive order ever since. When Congress eventually did reconvene, it was reconvened under the military authority of the Commander-in-Chief and not by Rules of Order for Parliamentary bodies or by Constitutional Law; placing the American people under martial rule ever since that national emergency declared by President Lincoln. The Constitution for the United States of America temporarily ceased to be the law of the land, and the President, Congress, and the Courts unlawfully presumed that they were free to remake the nation in their own image, whereas, lawfully, no constitutional provisions were in place which afforded power to any of the actions which were taken which presumed to place the nation under the new form of control. President Lincoln knew that he had no authority to issue any executive order, and thus he commissioned General Orders No. 100 (April 24, 1863) as a special field code to govern his actions under martial law and which justified the seizure of power, [b]which extended the laws of the District of Columbia, and which fictionally implemented the provisions of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17-18 of the Constitution beyond the boundaries of Washington, D.C. and into the several states. General Orders No. 100, also called the Lieber Instructions and the Lieber Code, extended The Laws of War and International Law onto American soil, and the United States government became the presumed conqueror of the people and the land. Martial rule was kept secret and has never ended, the nation has been ruled under Military Law by the Commander of Chief of that military; the President, under his assumed executive powers and according to his executive orders. Constitutional law under the original Constitution is enforced only as a matter of keeping the public peace under the provisions of General Orders No. 100 under martial rule. Under Martial Law, title is a mere fiction, since all property belongs to the military except for that property which the Commander-in-Chief may, in his benevolence, exempt from taxation and seizure and upon which he allows the enemy to reside. President Lincoln was assassinated before he could complete plans for reestablishing constitutional government in the Southern States and end the martial rule by executive order, and the 14th Article in Amendment to the Constitution created a new citizenship status for the new expanded jurisdiction. New laws for the District of Columbia were established and passed by Congress in 1871, supplanting those established Feb. 27, 1801 and May 3, 1802. The District of Columbia was re-incorporated in 1872, and all states in the Union were reformed as Franchisees of the Federal Corporation so that a new Union of the United States could be created. The key to when the states became Federal Franchisees is related to the date when such states enacted the Field Code in law. The Field Code was a codification of the common law that was adopted first by New York and then by California in 1872, and shortly afterwards the Lieber Code was used to bring the United States into the 1874 Brussels Conference and into the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. In 1917, the Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917) was passed and which defined, regulated and punished trading with enemies, who were then required by that act to be licensed by the government to do business. The National Banking System Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I, Chapter 1, March 9, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2038 (March 6, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2039 (March 9, 1933), and Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260 prove that in 1933, the United States Government formed under the executive privilege of the original martial rule went bankrupt, and a new state of national emergency was declared under which United States citizens were named as the enemy to the government and the banking system as per the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The legal system provided for in the Constitution was formally changed in 1938 through the Supreme Court decision in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188. On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government. "THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (supra)) The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?) In 1945 the United States gave up any remaining national sovereignty when it signed the United Nations Treaty, making all American citizens subject to United Nations jurisdiction. The "constitution" of the United Nations may be compared to that of the old Soviet Union. Observations - Arguments which suggest that the Treaty of Paris of 1783 was not a lawful or legal treaty of peace between warring nations and that the American Colonies never really attained or obtained lawful or legal sovereignty, must also presume, by their own argument, that the Constitution for the united States of America and the Bill of Rights were never organic documents of true lawful or legal standing. Conclusion - The Constitution for the united States of America and the Bill of Rights are no longer in effect in their original form or where they conflict with the United Nations Treaty and other international agreements. Citizens of the several States of the Union who were formerly sovereigns protected by the common law are now United States citizens and are thus subjects to International Admiralty jurisdiction. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now that you know what you are up against, I hope the above data and the linked Senate Report 93-549 causes you to see red, pisses you off enough to start thinking and doing something about it. I am fighting for my freedom and my country, to defend and restore the Constitution, our Nation's Sovereignty, Your Sovereignty, and Mine. Are You?? http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html ~ All documentation is available through your local government document repository library branch or at the Library of Congress. Documentation - Executive Order 1 - http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/proc-1.htm; General Orders No. 100 (April 24, 1863) "Lieber Code" - http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fle...EBER-CODE.txt; Senate Report 93-549 (93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973) - http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/war_ep1.html; The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917); National Banking System Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I, Chapter 1, March 9, 1933); Executive Proclamation 2038 (March 6, 1933); Executive Proclamation 2039 (March 9, 1933); Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260; Title 12 USC, Section 95a - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/95.html; Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188; and the United Nations Treaty. United States Constitution Controversies Between Citizens of Different States http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/c...3/18.html#t994 Constitution of the Confederate States of America March 11, 1861 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm Senate Report 93-549 (93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973) - http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm Lincoln Executive Proclamation - http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/proc-1.htm General Orders No. 100 (April 24, 1863) "Lieber Code" - http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/liebercode.htm Lieber Code - http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Gov/US-Docs/lieber.cod Lieber Instructions - http://usa-the-republic.com/emergency powers/ A State Senator Explains 14th Amendment Citizenship - http://centre.telemanage.ca/links.ns...256969004E3803 The Story of The Buck Act - http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/buck.html The Buck Act - http://usa-the-republic.com/emergenc...uck%20act.html The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917) - http://www.uhuh.com/laws/donncoll/eo/1917/EO2729A.TXT The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917) - http://www.conservativeusa.org/eo/1917/enemy.htm National Banking System Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I, Chapter 1, March 9, 1933) - http://www.fourwinds10.com/corner/01...cy-powers.html Bankruptcy Of The United States - http://usa-the-republic.com/emergenc...0Bankrupt.html Executive Proclamation 2038 (March 5, 1933) - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/...year=1933&id=2 Executive Proclamation 2039 (March 6, 1933) - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/...year=1933&id=8 Executive Order 6073 - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/...ear=1933&id=13 Executive Order 6102 - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/...ear=1933&id=34 Executive Order 6111 - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/...ear=1933&id=43 Executive Order 6260 - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/...ar=1933&id=131 Title 12 USC, Section 95a - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/95.html Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188 Who is Running America? - http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html The United Nations Charter - http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/uncharter.html Constitution of the old Soviet Union - http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/r100000_.html U.S. Legal History - http://www.stevegartin.com/legalshisory.htm Executive Order #10995: Seizure of all communications media in the United States. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo10995.htm http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...ders/1962.html Executive Order #10997: Seizure of all electric power fuels and minerals, public and private. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo10997.htm http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...ders/1962.html Executive Order #10999: Seizure of all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control of highways, seaports and waterways. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo10999.htm http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...ders/1962.html Executive Order #11000: Seizure of all American people for work forces under federal supervision including the splitting of families if the government finds it necessary. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo11000.htm http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...ders/1962.html Executive Order #11001: Seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, public and private. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo11001.htm http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...ders/1962.html Executive Order #11002: Empowered the postmaster general to register all men, women and children in the U.S. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo11002.htm http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...ders/1962.html Executive Order #11003: Seizure of all airports and aircraft. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo11003.htm http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...ders/1962.html Executive Order #11004: Seizure of all housing and finance authorities to establish Forced Relocation Designated areas to be abandoned as "unsafe." http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo11004.htm http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...ders/1962.html Executive Order #11005: Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, public and private. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo11005.htm http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...ders/1962.html Executive Order #12919: Signs June 3, 1994, by President Clinton. Encompasses all the above executive orders. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo12919.htm http://www.fema.gov/library/eo12919.shtm ~ AmericanPresidency.org: Public Papers of the Presidents - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/docs/index.php U.S. House of Representatives - http://www.house.gov/ U.S. Senate - http://www.senate.gov/ White House - http://www.whitehouse.gov/ Library of Congress - http://www.loc.gov/ Government Printing Office - http://www.access.gpo.gov/ General Accounting Office - http://www.gao.gov/ Federal Judicial Center - http://www.fjc.gov/ Congressional Budget Office - http://www.cbo.gov/ Government Resources - http://www.nttc.edu/resources/govern...vresources.asp January 21, 1861 Jefferson Davis' Farewell http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...s_Farewell.htm
__________________
GOLD=FREEDOM!
|
|
#26
11-03-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Quote:
One at a time here. 1. you do not own your land. 2. This is BS. You can leave anytime you want as long as you are not a captured criminal. You cannot take the land you do not own with you. You don't have to leave anything, you need to grow a spine and two testicles and stand up to take your country back, not grab the basketball and run away from the game with it. Damn where is this bipolar disorder coming from? Get real, or so you really want to see the country destroyed, is that it? If that is it, why? Just so you can see the plans you have made for your "shtf" scenario to come to pass? It is supposed to be a insurance policy not a set the timer on the bomb, grab your parachute and jump out of the plane strategy. A couple of you guys sound like you want the country to fall on a sword. What makes that American?
|
|
#27
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
This isn't making news because the entire neo-con camp is taking it the hard way today.
Delay is doing all he can to demean our judicial system. Everyone wants Rove's head as-well Scooter is looking to scoot out of jail The senate has been redirected by a minority Bush is getting protested in Argentinia Oh and on a side note Vermont is thinking of forming its own country. Too much for TPTB to handle or plan for at once. Quote:
The "top"
__________________
English Commander: Beg your pardon sire, but won't we hit our own troops ? Longshanks: Yes... but we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves... attack .
|
|
#28
11-03-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Income taxes are voluntary.
Is going to jail for non payment voluntary? Name a case FF were the government prosecution of a tax cheat or avoider was dismissed based on this fact.
|
|
#29
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Curtman,
The America you think still exists is gone. I know it's hard to accept...it took me awhile, but the red pill finally kicked in. We are currently living in a gigantic corporation called The United States of America. The Republic called the united States of America no longer exists. How can you fight for something that no longer exists? You can't. What you can do is remove yourself from an entity that you did not ever ordain and start a new one that you do agree on. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
__________________
GOLD=FREEDOM!
|
|
#30
11-03-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
Quote:
What kind of prosecution??? Oh, government prosecution...I think that proves my point.
__________________
GOLD=FREEDOM!
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
